I speak of the animal of the herd for which we so often express our disdain.And why do we disdain? Because they huddle together and fallow each other around?To be honest, it is not the propensity to huddle that I find so repulsive, as I believe there is a time and place for many things; when the night is cold even the wolf, so noble and strong, will take comfort in the collective warmth of his kind. But when troubles and tumult arise, the pack and the herd behave very differently, and the herd will continue to huddle as best it can while running wildly without individual reason or direction. It is this property that makes the herd animal such an excellent choice for cattle.However we have still not totally answered the question, why do we disdain?Surely not because of a lack of Darwinian advantage for such species. The herds of the world have survived for millions of years, and the thundering hooves of the Serengeti even the lion knows to respect and not oppose directly. but this new predator, the shepherd, the herdsman... I say we disdain the creature of the herd because, we see how the shepherds do drive us and yet we are powerless to stop the stampeding masses that crowd around us.And so we strain and strive to separate ourselves from them or to bring reason to their maddened minds.

Many would insist that the satanic perspective is in essence atheist. I am not here to argue definitions, such is usually a futile endeavor as human minds are so divers in their individual mechanics.Science seems to me as much an organized part of the established system as religion. If religions were designed, by the ones who truly rule the earth and laugh with noisome mirth, to lie to the masses and keep them in check, why should we assume the scientific establishment to be any different?Yet we do see that science and religion do stand in opposition to each other. But I would hesitate in the choosing of one side over another. The enemy of an enemy does not automatically designate a friend. Does not wisdom say that you must have your hooks in both sides to guarantee? and we do like guarantees, don't we?I would remind you of your purgative to question all things. Your reason must be your own, and not supplied by another. The adding of 2 and 2 should be a constant staple in the mind of the free man, if nothing else but for the maintaining of his freedom.

We have no need to deliberate the existence of the supernatural. If there is an effect it may as well be of natural cause. That which is labeled super-natural we can well assume is simply do to those parts of nature for which we have yet to find a cause, a mechanism, and equation.

Entropy is the second power, Queen of the universe. And entropy, as we all know, is a bitch. And yet, we see in the mirror a force of nature with the power to turn back entropy. Can we truly condemn the common man for imagining and creating for himself greater minds than his own to explain his current existence? Can we as of yet totally discount the possibility? Truly, the only thing I condemn is the assumption.I would also caution against any feeling of comfort one might have over the possibility of such a thing, nor would I condone the automatic labeling of such a creature as good if such was ever discovered. Time would tell of all intentions as it always does.

A wonderful bird is the pelicanHis beak can hold more than his belly-canHe can take in his beakFood enough for a weekBut I'm damned if I see how the Hell-he-can

_________________________
They are doomed because they cannot even glimpse beyond the construct that their masters have put into place. Their masters are doomed because they believe in the construct they created.

Regarding the first post: after some rambling, it looks like you asked a question then answered it yourself.

Originally Posted By: john hunter

Many would insist that the satanic perspective is in essence atheist.

Atheism means nothing more than having no belief in a deity. Satanism is indeed a non-theistic religion, and Satanists are atheists by the definition. But there's a hell of a lot more to Satanism than just our stance on the issue of deity.

Quote:

I am not here to argue definitions

That's good, because the term "atheism" is already clear-cut. And those of here also already know what "Satanism" is.

Quote:

Science seems to me as much an organized part of the established system as religion. If religions were designed, by the ones who truly rule the earth and laugh with noisome mirth, to lie to the masses and keep them in check, why should we assume the scientific establishment to be any different?

I always find it amusing when people try to condemn science via electronic computer, but I digress.

First of all, not all religions were deliberately created from scratch, in one sitting, let alone from "ones who truly rule the earth". They're mostly the accumulated byproducts of numerous years of a culture's oral traditions, superstition, the innate human need for ritualistic expression, etc.

Second of all, science is based on the scientific method, not subjective experiences. It's the scientific method that also keeps science in check as well as expanding. This is the complete opposite of how religious dogma works.

Quote:

Yet we do see that science and religion do stand in opposition to each other.

Only because there are some loud, superstitious religious people who have emotional investments in things that contradict the findings of science.

Quote:

But I would hesitate in the choosing of one side over another. The enemy of an enemy does not automatically designate a friend.

I can't say that religion itself is my "enemy" since I do adhere to a particular religion. At the same time, I don't see any conflicts with my religion and science. Satanism recognizes subjective experiences for what they are; just not necessarily invalid.

Quote:

Does not wisdom say that you must have your hooks in both sides to guarantee? and we do like guarantees, don't we?I would remind you of your purgative to question all things. Your reason must be your own, and not supplied by another.

Sounds to me like you're advocating solipsism. Are you?

Quote:

Can we truly condemn the common man for imagining and creating for himself greater minds than his own to explain his current existence? Can we as of yet totally discount the possibility? Truly, the only thing I condemn is the assumption.

Substitute 'prerogative' for 'purgative' and I hope it should make more sense.

There's a difference between Satanic skepticism and counter-productive solipsism. I hate to jump to conclusions here, but if you're trying to play the old solipsism game that mystics always like to play ("My assertion is just as valid as anything a scientist would say, and if you disagree then you're placing blind religious faith in what a scientist says"), then I'm calling bullshit on that.

Please rest assured, the condemnation of neither science nor religion is my overall intention. I do in fact have a great admiration for the scientific method, which, as you pointed out, is in direct opposition to the concept of absolute religious dogma, faith and beliefs; an 'assumption' as opposed to an educated guess. However I have found that in order to accomplish something one does have to stop analyzing at some point and start doing; dedicate to the proposition and take action. Faith is indeed a form of dedication. The question one must ask themselves is, how came they to these conclusions upon which they now act? Whatever the origins or original purposes of religion, It is apparent to me that it has indeed been used as a tool by rulers in the past and arguably still is. As far as the scientific establishment is concerned... ...to be honest I'm not exactly sure where I am going with this.I am actually quite flattered that you felt compelled to reply to this topic.

It is enough to say I have become suspicious of anything that comes with an official label, be it religious or otherwise.Maybe it is just paranoia, who knows.

I do in fact have a great admiration for the scientific method, which, as you pointed out, is in direct opposition to the concept of absolute religious dogma, faith and beliefs; an 'assumption' as opposed to an educated guess. However I have found that in order to accomplish something one does have to stop analyzing at some point and start doing; dedicate to the proposition and take action.

Thank you for clarifying. It's just that I saw the I've seen SO many people over the years who used the same sorts of lines you've used ("Isn't science like a religion?", "We need to question everything", etc.) who were ultimately trying to make the solipsistic argument I outlined in my previous post. Again, I didn't mean to jump to conclusions, but that's where I initially thought you were going with this.

Quote:

Whatever the origins or original purposes of religion, It is apparent to me that it has indeed been used as a tool by rulers in the past and arguably still is.

Oh that's certainly been the case. I just see lots of militant atheists for example who take that observation to erroneously conclude "all religions were created by people who knew better, for the sole sake of deceiving and controlling large groups of people". But that's another topic.

To be honest I had to look 'solipsism' up on wiki real fast to know the exact nature of the accusation. Real science has nothing to do with religion. Like you say, it is the exact opposite.

I have to think that science as a discipline would be very hard for any 'ruler' to control. But if one could it would be an excellent addition to the pieces on your chessboard. Especially because of its seeming opposition to the religious! You could move them in tandem or separately. You could set up a left wing, right wing construct, with one leaning to the tune of your scientific authority, and the other to that of your religious authority. Never destroying one another but always in opposition, like a giant wheel of political 'progress.' I suppose you could do it, with enough money and or other mechanisms of leverage. I know you would want to do it, if you were at the top. One of the greatest forms of power is knowledge; which you would want to keep it in your own private storehouses as best as possible, and keep the river to the lowlands dammed up and controlled. One of the greatest foundations of national security is secrecy. For the sake of national security and social cohesion, you have to keep the flow of knowledge and information to the people under raps, of course without making it look like you are doing so. Your religious establishment would be just fine, they stand on their own; their constituents already thinking they know everything. But a scientific establishment you would have to throw a juicy bone every once in a while if not quite often. The boys in lab coats and the students and teachers always itching for more, more, More! Any obvious attempt at restraining them would be met with immediate anger, suspicion, and political backlash, and would...

wait... where was I...I kind of got carried away there.at any rate...Dara O'Briain; first time I have ever heard the guy. Thank you for introducing me, I will definitely have to look into his work.